Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let BRAVO Know What You THINK About Their Homosexual Agenda!
07/29/03 | Kieri

Posted on 07/29/2003 6:25:52 AM PDT by Kieri

This morning I decided to let BRAVO have an earful. Here is my email:

"As a DirecTV subscriber, I am notifying you I am permanently blocking BRAVO from my menu on my DSS receiver.

Your push for homosexual-'friendly' programming demonstrates your pandering to an audience that exhibits behavior that is not only detrimental to their own health, but the health and safety of families everywhere. I refuse to risk allowing my children to see promo material on your channel, so I find it necessary to block BRAVO and will encourage others to do so. Your advertisers will no longer reach me or my family members, and I have let DirecTV know of our all too easy decision to block BRAVO.

You may consider a homosexual audience on worthy of pursuit, but families who treasure their own lifestyles think otherwise."

I encourage others to let both BRAVO and their cable/DSS companies know that you're blocking their agenda-pushing programming!

BRAVO's "Contact Us" page is here:

http://www.bravotv.com/Contact_Us/

OR you can smail mail them here:

Bravo Viewer Relations
c/o NBC Entertainment
3000 W. Alameda Ave.
Burbank, CA 90036


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: atheists; biglie; bisexualsmakeachoice; bornheterosexual; boycott; boycottnbc; bravo; cabletelevision; cabletv; catholiclist; causedbyenvironment; cheerleaders; christianhating; christophobes; culture; culturewar; directtv; downourthroats; gay; gaybashers; gaymenschorus; gays; gaytrolldolls; hairbrainedstudies; hedonists; hollywierd; homonazi; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuallobby; homosexuallobbyists; homosexuals; homosexualtrolls; indoctrination; lavendermafia; lesbian; libertarians; libertines; nbc; nogeneticcomponent; peckingparty; perversion; prosodomycrowd; pseudoscience; queer; queereye; religionbashing; repressedinthecloset; rinos; samesexdisorder; sexaddicts; sexualdeviance; sexualdeviants; sierrabravo; sodomites; sodomizers; standfornothing; television; theususalsuspects; trashtv; tv; usefulidiots
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 801-811 next last
To: George W. Bush; finnman69
...I think the show is pressing something of a psychological strategy for physical intimacy between sodomites and normal men. There is a definite sense of trying to knock down the barrier. This should not surprise greatly given the number of sodomites whose sole interest is in seducing normal men to their degraded lifestyle. Sodomites are as tweaky over normal men as some normal men are over lesbians.

Lesbians? It's getting more and more confusing, tangled, and ambiguous. It's been a dozen years since I started first working out at a "Rally's Health Club". After moving to the trendy, hip, east side of town, and becoming accustomed to dressing and undressing around guys who were, uh, "different" than me (among other signs, you could often tell by the ox-eyed looks and stares), I thought I was more or less inured, or used to that sort of thing. "Live and let live". As long as it's not intruding into my invisible comfort zone.

Ha! I even supposed I was pretty good at sensing who was and who was not a buggerer. It was a little over a year ago that I found myself with a new co-worker who seemed like a great guy-- verbally agile, good sense of humor, quite a few similar interests... He was married and played amateur hockey in his spare time. Rode a Harley. Lucky me, I got to find out that, although he was married, he liked having "something on the side... something a little different..."

[Musical cue, Maestro, please: (wink, wink)

"One Night in Bangkok"/"Putting on the Ritz"...]

To say I was taken by complete surprise would be an understatement. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I sort of pretended I hadn't heard when he asked if I'd ever had any 'gay experiences'. (Thereby learning the meaning of what gay folks refer to as "denial", I've been told.) I told myself I really hadn't seen what I knew I'd seen in his face.

Wow, did that ever turn out to be fantastically helpful... Finding out this man's "secret" has been one of the most painfully awkward things that's ever happened to me. It made working on the job--in the next cubicle over-- uh, more than a little tense. I tried to bury everything with jokes, ignoring the subject (not asking, not telling) but after much initial success that strategy failed completely. It also didn't stop him from continuing to make subtle and not-so-subtle come-ons. That was to my face, of course. When I wasn't around (I eventually discovered from other co-workers) he was "stabbing my back", especially with our department head.

Anyway... to make a long story a little less painfully tedious... I found myself in the store with his wife a couple of weeks ago. I didn't know what to say, or how to continue the conversation--which I'd started-- about "Jellyhead", her husband. She's an only child, incapable of having kids, who stands to inherit A LOT of money when her aging sole surviving parent kicks off. I just didn't know how to blurt it all out--clearly, concisely, unambiguously--in 2 or 3 short, simple, declarative sentances. ...It's not my story. How do I tell it...?

So, to get to the point for this thread, yes, I think I agree with you that there are "sodomites interested in seducing normal men"... But whether or not they satisfy community standards for publicly visible swishiness is completely irrelevent. The biggest part of the issue is the secrecy, and with it, the double-standard that these guys think they own.

It's not even a liberal/conservative issue. After talking to one very happily "outted" gay guy and finding out just how many married guys go to "the bars", I'm convinced there are plenty of these kinds of guys who think of themselves as "conservative" (and often, "libertarian"). I'd also be willing to wager heavily that, as a group, this particular sub-stratum of society is given to misogynism (contempt for women) and the more overtly crude sorts of racism. (Possibly because they can't risk acknowledging their own self-hatred, but have to find some sort of outlet.) I'd be willing to go out on a limb and bet they're evenly divided between "liberals" and "conservatives", or that their actual place on the political spectrum tends equally towards both extremes of the scale. For every Jean Genet, there is an Ernst Rohm. Or something like that. The socially liberal and socially traditional conservatives on this board (along with the lurking socially conservative liberals and the more-or-less broad-minded centrists) can keep beating each other to death, but I think it's a waste of effort.

Some of you sound like you're talking about completely eliminating men on TV giving fashion advice or cooking or style tips. Geeze, what a boost to the economy that will provide. People prevented from pursuing personal goals by (presumably) some sort of state-sponsored, heavy-fisted legal injunction. Leaving that particular field wide open for all the Harley-riding, hockey-playing *invisible* buggerers. What was that you were saying about 'Germans', Dubya?

441 posted on 07/29/2003 3:21:23 PM PDT by MoJoWork_n (We don't know what it is we don't know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Scourge of God
That's odd to take both sides of an issue.

Actually, I'm hated by both sides :-)

I don't compromise my biblical viewpoints, but I try to not overstate my case when discussing non-biblical matters.

442 posted on 07/29/2003 3:21:52 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
How come when men try to pick up women its called hitting on them, but when men hit on men homophbes call it 'recruiting' like it's an organization or something?

"Hitting" on a woman is the same thing as "recruiting" if she's a virgin or is married. Why can't conservatiphobic anti-religious bigots like you understand this?

443 posted on 07/29/2003 3:22:33 PM PDT by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Except for the moral angle, are you OK with lesbianism then?

I go by the facts. I have no choice. I do object to the breakdown of family. That's dangerous to this country as a whole. I wouldn't let them off scott free.
Biblically, though, I still have free will, and find their actions detestable.

444 posted on 07/29/2003 3:24:05 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Anti-American liberals are inbread Notsosmarto's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

Comment #445 Removed by Moderator

To: Yehuda
You apparently don't read very well. Please see my post #165 for an explanation of biological basis. No one is saying biology is the sole cause. It is certainly "a" cause, however, regardless of what the religious organization you cited claims.

As I said, even the heavily biased NARTH and "gaytostraight.org" concede that the Bailey-Pillard study has merit, even though they chose to take different things from the study itself. The admission of a known critics of homosexuality are far more convincing than the self-serving rants of a religious organization.

VR

446 posted on 07/29/2003 3:26:37 PM PDT by VetsRule (Anti-Gay Bigotry Should Not Be a Tenet of Conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Re #444.

We seem to agree on the lesbian issue.

447 posted on 07/29/2003 3:27:32 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
The study does not identify an individual gene responsible for directing sexual orientation, nor does it show that the specific chromosome accounts for all occurrences of homosexuality.

Umm, no kidding. I never said a specific gene had been isolated, nor did I say that the X chromosome accounts for ALL occurrence of homosexuality (a claim which is ludicrous based on the fact that biology is only one -- an important one, but only one nevertheless -- aspect of determining homosexual behavior). I merely said (correctly) that homosexuality had been isolated to the X chromosome, and that that happened way back in 1993.

Try arguing with what I actually said, not with what you wish I said.

VR

448 posted on 07/29/2003 3:29:29 PM PDT by VetsRule (Anti-Gay Bigotry Should Not Be a Tenet of Conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
The grooming guy? you have to be joking. His muscle-shirts and forelock updo scream "eternal boy" chic... I just want to wash all that gel out of his hair.

Ted (The food guy), whom I totally dig, seems the most "normal" to me, though he's not the least bit boring.
449 posted on 07/29/2003 3:30:14 PM PDT by SarahW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty
"Straight Eye for the Queer Guy"

How to throw a football, swap sparkplugs, drink domestic beer out of the can, field-dress game ...

Since they show no interest in a show like this, I must presume they're heterophobes.

450 posted on 07/29/2003 3:31:33 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (...and Freedom tastes of Reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
I rather have my children watch this show than a lot of the other violent sex-laden macho garbage on TV. God forbid someone sees the difference between living like a [sic] hum and living with a little class.

Yeah! That's the ticket. Let's let our kids see a show where the homosexuals all have class and the straights all live like bums. And let's encourage them to watch shows where conservatives are all bums and the liberals are all class acts. What's the harm there? As some deep thinker once said, "God forbid someone sees the difference between living like a bum and living with a little class."

451 posted on 07/29/2003 3:32:12 PM PDT by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: giotto
In fact, if Fox News went back to webcasting, I would cancel DirecTV altogether.

You and a lot of other people. I suspect this is why there is no more FNC webcasting.
452 posted on 07/29/2003 3:34:15 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
We seem to agree on the lesbian issue.

I would have preferred not to answer, but I did, and I won't lie about anything. Not even about the things I seriously object to.
Males, on the other hand, are a completly different story. Check the statistics on them!! Death and perversion abounds!

453 posted on 07/29/2003 3:34:38 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Anti-American liberals are inbread Notsosmarto's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
How to throw a football, swap sparkplugs, drink domestic beer out of the can, field-dress game ... Since they show no interest in a show like this, I must presume they're heterophobes.

It's time to organize, brothers. We need funding from Washington to forcibly educate and sensitize these hetrophobes! Contact your congresscritter today!

LOL! Even in these "enlightened" times woman want men to be men, not queer, or metro sexual, or sensitive-to-their-needs.

Just be a decent sort of fellow. That'll get you more and better women than all the fashion makeovers in the world.

454 posted on 07/29/2003 3:36:33 PM PDT by Scourge of God
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Scourge of God
Just be a decent sort of fellow. That'll get you more and better women than all the fashion makeovers in the world.

Yes. It would.

455 posted on 07/29/2003 3:38:49 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Anti-American liberals are inbread Notsosmarto's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Scourge of God
PS....

Eventually the paint from the make over would peel off anyway.
I wonder why liberal TV isn't teaching young men how to be real men. Guess real men are bad guys now.

456 posted on 07/29/2003 3:41:32 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Anti-American liberals are inbread Notsosmarto's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
I wonder why liberal TV isn't teaching young men how to be real men. Guess real men are bad guys now.

Paging Jimmy Rockford. Would Mr. Rockford come to the white phone?

TV has changed from James Rockford spurning a pistol because he was so tough he didn't need to carry one. Rockford would have chewed up and spit out the Sopranos. :->

457 posted on 07/29/2003 3:47:43 PM PDT by Scourge of God
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: MoJoWork_n
Leaving that particular field wide open for all the Harley-riding, hockey-playing *invisible* buggerers. What was that you were saying about 'Germans', Dubya?

I was about to admit that my position had completely collapsed before the juggernaut of your gripping tale.

But then, I remembered it was just a personal anecdote and proves nothing to anyone except you and people who share your preconceptions.

You are, however, correct about the hidden sodomites. I've avoided sodomites almost entirely for over ten years. I've still been hit on three different times by three different guys, all considered straight to the people who knew them. (I don't consider myself attractive either though I am slim.) Two of them were (now former) friends of mine from my younger days. Personally, I think some guys are just indiscriminating if they feel horny. Any port in a storm. I think some men also like a little 'strange' every now and then. It seems to be a deep-seated psychologoical need for some, that it is the very perverseness and forbidden nature of the acts which draws them. For those kind, the kinkier and more perverted, the better. I've never liked the term bisexual. Some people just want some action, any action with any willing person of either sex and most any age.
458 posted on 07/29/2003 3:51:02 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: VetsRule
Umm, no kidding. I never said a specific gene had been isolated, nor did I say that the X chromosome accounts for ALL occurrence of homosexuality (a claim which is ludicrous based on the fact that biology is only one -- an important one, but only one nevertheless -- aspect of determining homosexual behavior). I merely said (correctly) that homosexuality had been isolated to the X chromosome, and that that happened way back in 1993.

So it is genetic and environmental? Or it can just be genetic? Or it can just be environmental?

Do you even know what genetics is?
459 posted on 07/29/2003 3:54:43 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
Lunatic, did you even READ the post?

They are advising Bravo of THEIR CHOICE to block the programming and encouraging others to do the same.

That's a far cry from picketing a movie theater.
460 posted on 07/29/2003 3:55:27 PM PDT by MattGarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 801-811 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson